This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Someone just moved this article to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre. I moved it back. That's a good redirect to have but a very bad name for this article. Put simply, no one refers to this event by that name. And common usage is one of our guiding principles in naming articles.
Any other thoughts or discussion? -- ElKevbo ( talk) 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No one calls Tech VPI these days. and the user who did the move has taken to constantly blanking their talk page. Bad form all around. DarkAudit ( talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't a Korean VT student shoot himself in his car in the Target parking lot in Christiansburg, VA, after being bullied by other students because he was Korean? This incident occured after the shootings and I recall he mentioned something about how people said he looked like Cho. Redjoker01 ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)redjoker01: 10/17/08
I just saw a Korean TV show which claimed that Cho didn't do it, and was merely a scapegoat for the real killer, who presumably remains at large. Do we have any citable Korean sources that make the conspiracy claim? 121.162.51.143 ( talk) 09:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH01_20090201-003926/194507/ More sites locked before Tech alert
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH02_20090201-222813/195587/No Tech follow-up on Cho incidents
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH03_20090202-221910/196413/ Part 3: Va. Tech’s warning was too late
http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/images/20090202/vatechdocuments.html Two Versions of Events at Virginia Tech
http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/VTContents.pdf Va. Tech documents
http://www.prevailarchive.org/archive/ The Prevail Archive is a volunteer Virginia Tech student effort to make internal documents relating to the events of April 16 at Virginia Tech publicly accessible
Springmorning ( talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The article says that there is/was a settlement, yet it fails to say who or what is paying the money to the families?-- Demertius840 ( talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The article could include a reference to Lucinda Roy's book, "No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech"
Between references 3 & 4, there is a sentence referring to people who identified the need for intervention - Roy appears to be one of those individuals.
Mahetrick ( talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Reading this article, I'm left wondering what "Hokie" means. Unfree ( talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The article claims to be listing deaths in chronological order. However, Librescu is third on the list, while the text of the article states, that Cho first went to Room 206 and 207 and killed people there, before going to Room 204, and killing Librescu. Aquila89 ( talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the infobox photo show the actual massacre, not a separate (but related) event? The mourning of students isn't the massacre, the shooting that took place prior is. Wikipedia should be as direct as possible in describing things. 76.167.53.67 ( talk) 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
A song on the Exodus' new Album "Exhibit B: The Human Condition" called "Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)," is a reference to Cho and the massacre. Is it appropriate to use this song in popular culture segment of the page. Here is a link to the VT massacre view http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/04/23/exodus-class-dismissed-a-hate-primer-new-song/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.241.139 ( talk) 09:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There was also that kid who made that controversial NES-style game on Newgrounds, which isn't mentioned here.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this section is too detailed and focused on too many little incidents. In particular, I question whether the article should include the paragraph on the marching bands, and whether we need quite so much detail on the South Korean response. I hesitate to make this kind of broad change unilaterally, though. What do others think? Karanacs ( talk) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but i just replaced the misnomer "Vermont" Tech, with Virginia Tech, twice in this section. I assume someone did some typos and mistakenly used the name of another "V" state when writing the text. Meat Eating Orchid ( talk) 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "gun rights activist" concerns me because groups with opposing points of view (the Brady group) are not labelled as "anti-gun rights activists." To be fair, shouldn't both sides be labelled or neither? 192.31.106.35 ( talk) 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)mike
I believe you are correct, it is a POV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors Gekritzl and ElKevbo have been adding content (the latter just one time) about Cho's mother seeking spiritual help trough an exorcism for Cho. Arkon and I have reverted most of this edits (I also once rephrased the content to conform to the source, and Arkon once reverted the use of the term "exorcism" as it does not exist in the sources). I have opened a thread in the original research noticeboard about this matter. I would ask all parties interested in this matter to discuss it in the mentioned thread in order to concentrate the opinions, and reach a consensus. Thank you all. -- Legion fi ( talk) 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
No offense but... let's see how many man-hours we can WASTE over nothing more than a matter of semantics, a synonym, as MithrasPriest pointed out. Anybody? I already went back to my life. Geĸrίtzl ( talk) 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I distinctly remember that at the time there was a lot of coverage on Cho's sister and the fact she was their parents' favorite and the effect this had on Cho, yet I don't read any of this back in the article. Care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 ( talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As this article is related and probably more watched, I'm giving notification here. I have nominated Wendell Flinchum for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Flinchum if you wish to opine. -- B ( talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is it mentioned that one of the teachers was a Holocaust survivor as he was holding the door shut? This is inappropriate and has nothing to do with his actions at the time of shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.142.155 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 April 2011
The "Weapon(s) Glock 19, Walther P22" information seems out of place in the infobox for some reason. Putting that line there puts disproportionate importance and stress on the brands of weapon used, since the rest of the information is of the most fundamental information about the attack (location, amount of casualties, etc). For me, adding weapon brands into the infobox adds a weird artificial coldness to it, making it seem more like something you would find on a website made by people obsessed with mass murders rather than something you would find on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it should be removed. 46.162.70.221 ( talk) 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a picture of the shooter posing with his guns trying to look badass but none of the victims anywhere. And people wonder why kids do this kind of crap. KevinLuna ( talk) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence of the description of the shootings reads "Conversely, due to the limited penetration depth of hollow point bullets, it is likely that Colman would have died had they not been used". The reference is a 20 year old material, and the ammunition used is not pointed to in the article as what Cho used. The statement that hollowpoint bullets have limited penetration seems to suggest that they have limited wounding capabilities which is ludicrous. Also, you have to go back 3 paragraphs to determine who "Coleman" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm totally against adding information about the shooting that happened today in this article. We know absolutely nothing about this, the shooter is still on the loose, and it appears to be during a traffic stop. If this turns out to be just random crime during a traffic stop, no one will remember anything about this incident in a year. 129.186.245.2 ( talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone has added info about the alert system and it's use yesterday. I don't see yesterday's event is relevant to April 16. I will be reverting or editing that info. -- Possum4all ( talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a shooting pointer at the top of the Massacre entry? That page us up for deletion.-- Possum4all ( talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
"red flags" such as an "unusual interest in police, military equipment, weapons, and camouflage"
So I guess half the male population is at risk of being mass murderers? I'm sorry, when I was growing up, most all my friends loved playing with guns, reading and talking about guns, the military, and the sometimes the police. And many of my friends wore camo gear or bdu's and military gear for fun. This is ridiculous. Perhaps having testosterone was a red flag that he might be homicidal??? Interest in weapons and the military may indicate a sense of powerlessness, but it doesn't indicate homicidal tendencies. Uh, perhaps stalking women and being diagnosed with mental disorders might have been red flags. Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Request someone reword part of this article:
The article states that visitors and third-parties are banned from carrying weapons: this is not true. As a state entity, VPIU&SU is prohibited from enacting such a ban by Virginia law. It is only a violation of school rules for a student or employee to carry and can be met with disciplinary action. In the case of the student who carried a firearm with a concealed handgun permit, it is NOT illegal and no charges could ever be filed because no law was broken. He could be subject to administrative disciplinary processes, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.43.45 ( talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Could it be noted somewhere in the article that the fifth anniversary of this is a day or two after Kim-Jong Un's first speech in North Korea? -- 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A link I added to a recent book on the Virginia Tech Massacre was removed as promotional content/spam. Not sure if this was a mistake or intentional. I reinstated the link and checked the guidelines to be sure. The book is directly relevant to the article's subject. If the new link is somehow inappropriate, the link to the documentary should also be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead and the box with the victims say 32 killed. BUt this part "of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head" says 30. Can someone explain this difference? And if you count Cho it's 33, plus the 6 injured escaping from windows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinSky ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In two phone interviews of Cho's suite-mates on Cable TV news programs Cho was reveled to have created Subliminal Distraction exposure and would have experienced the psychotic-like episode SD exposure has been known to cause for 48 years. Both the President and Dean of students at Tech replied to communications and promised action to investigate this. But nothing has been done. This revelation would make Tech responsible for the shooting.
His roommates said he sat in the outer suite room using his computer to perform classwork and would not look up and acknowledge them as they walked by him going and returning from classes. One of them said he increased that activity in the month before the shooting.___ They were describing how disturbed and distant he was and did not understand they were also describing Subliminal Distraction.
Engineers and designers hired to modernize the business office discovered the problem when it caused mental breaks for office workers in 1964. The Cubicle was designed to block peripheral vision to stop it by 1968. That prevents repeating subliminal failed attempts to execute the vision startle reflex, explained in first semester psychology as a subliminal distraction. If the mental break it causes is mentioned in lectures about peripheral vision reflexes it is treated as something that happened only once, long ago. My instructor said, "Subliminal sight caused a problem in the early days of modern office design."
The Redlake tribal school, Jokela Finland school,and Atlanta day trader killers also created this problem. Barton, Atlanta, thought he was having a mental break from inherited mental illness.
L K Tucker VisionAndPsychosis.Net I own the copyright for VisionAndPsychosis.Net. 2602:306:CCE1:2C50:1095:FF3D:38F4:1CC4 ( talk) 02:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it can be added. a little wrewriting but yes looks fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereisnospoons ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
According to Seung-Hui Cho's page he killed 32 and wounded 23, but this page says he killed 32 and wounded 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.226.193 ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The part "previously adjudicated" means that a court of law decided. Rather than just go and change it to "judged by authorities", I'd appreciate feedback. Wzrd1 ( talk) 05:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That didn't take long. A section added here earlier today on 'Criticism of university response' has been removed without comment. Can we have the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: Did you actually read the section you removed before removing it?
The subject of the section is criticism of the university's response. The criticism comes from Prof. Kenneth Westhues, who is notable enough apparently to have his own Wiki entry (see deleted section). The section you deleted mentions a series of articles accessible through the link provided -- two of which appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Only one of which is 'self-published', appearing on the professor's blog.
This article has at least half a dozen separate 'response' sub-sections. Is it really impossible that there can be mention of criticism of Virginia Tech's response on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I invite you to click on the ref link given in the section to the 'series of articles'. On the left, in easy to read large text, you will find links to articles by Westhues -- some of which were published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch as mentioned. The main body of the article is indeed 'self-published'. But as Wikipedia's own article on Westhues states, he is a listed authority on the topic of mobbing. It strikes me as odd that this would be a problem since Wikipedia seems to cite blogs and new media all the time. Heinrich66 ( talk) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, another reason why your comment above is odd is because the purpose of the section 'Criticism of university response' is not to prove the university was at fault. It's simply to note as a fact that criticism exists. In this case, it comes from an established professor who is an authority in his field. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it curious how certain articles have these standards rigidly enforced and yet others are a complete mess. [BTW, it's funny that the section has now been immediately deleted by someone who only seems to have contributed to articles about Seung-Hui Cho and George W. Bush in the past. Did you call him up to avoid 3RR?] If Westhues had expressed his opinions in an interview with a magazine (or on somebody else's blog, for that matter) that would have been sufficient as citation to show that a) criticism exists; and b) that he was the one criticizing. Yet the writing by the man himself is somehow not sufficient. The link I gave was itself a direct and the most efficient way for a reader to access Westhues' writing on Virginia Tech -- which is the purpose of citation after all. But fine, if you're to be taken at your word, I'll re-work the section. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This is from Wikipedia's own guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6]
So how do you justify what you wrote above? Westhues is an established expert in mobbing (even according to Wikipedia) who self-published at least one piece and published another stating his view that the VT shootings were the result of mobbing. And yet the whole section has been removed. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Now you're moving the goalposts. So you say that *even if* something is determined to be a reliable source, that doesn't mean it should be included? It's a 'judgment call'? And yet somehow this judgment call you're appealing to saves us from the 'opinions of volunteers who may not be experts'?
You are a volunteer, not an expert. According to Wikipedia's own guideline (quoted above) a self-published piece *may* be included "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". This is clearly the case with Westhues. 1) He is a recognized expert on mobbing. 2) He has published in reliable third-party publications on mobbing. 3) He claims mobbing happened at Virginia Tech.
I'd also like to note for anyone reading this, that there should even be a slightly weaker standard here since what we're talking about is not a wiki article on mobbing, but rather the factual question of whether criticism of the university exists in connection with the shootings. It does exist; it's undeniable. In this particular case, the critic (Westhues) has criticized the university for failing to recognize Cho was mobbed. Whether or not we agree with him, it is a fact that he has made this criticism. It's also a fact based on Wikipedia's own guideline above, as a recognized expert in his field, not only can self-published material of his be cited, but as a professor and published author, the balance goes in favor of his inclusion on this point. Heinrich66 ( talk) 21:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You're not making any sense now. I've reworked the section according to the criticisms of yours that appear legitimate. Whether or not what's going on here is simple gate-keeping, time will tell. Here's a summary of the changes: 1. Three citations are now given for Westhues: a) a self-published piece -- which under Wikipedia guidelines may be used when the author is a specialist/expert in his field b) a published piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch c) a peer-reviewed third-party piece by Ffion Murphy from a series called "The Creativity and Uncertainty Papers: the refereed proceedings of the 13th conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, 2008".
These three ought to be sufficient to establish the factual issue of: a) whether criticism of the university exists; b) whether it is Westhues who is criticizing; c) whether that criticism involves the concept of mobbing.
2) I've removed the citation to the unsigned blog post, and redirected it instead to the Westhues piece where he cites it. The responsibility for the citation, therefore, is Westhues', not Wikipedia's.
The above addresses your legitimate concerns. I think it's non-controversial that there should be a section on criticism of the university. The VT massacre was a major event, as shown by its having a Wiki article. Also, as the same article points out, the university was fined, which suggests its conduct was perhaps not impeccable. On the factual question of whether public criticism of the university also exists in connection with the shootings, we have it: a professor who is a recognized expert in his field has publicly criticized the university and its response to the shootings for failing to recognize their cause, which he claims is mobbing. He has not only self-published this view (which can be cited according to Wiki guidelines), but published it in a major newspaper, and his work has been cited at least once by another academic in a peer-reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Since she is included here, I'm providing a link to the discussion regarding the deletion of the article for Diane Strickland. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Strickland if you wish to comment.— D'Ranged 1 talk 10:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! About This edit
The idea is not two archived sites but two working links. A site with a working original link and one archive link is okay, because both links work. But since the original link is dead it's not necessary to have a hyperlink of it when we can put in another archive link. Three reasons:
Trying to stick to a rigid "it must be the dead original link and one archive link only" is harmful. When I do archive links, I stick to two working links for the above reasons and that is how I want things to work. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion was moved here from User talk:D'Ranged 1#Two archived sites.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 14:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
WhisperToMe—While I tend to agree with your reasoning, it goes against Wikipedia practice. WP:Link rot specifically states:
WP:Link rot has an entire section, titled Keeping dead links, that explains why dead links shouldn't be deleted. In a nutshell: the link, even if no longer functional, gives the reader excellent information on where to find the material cited. In this particular instance, suppose both archive sites cease functioning or are down? Having the link to the Commonwealth of Virginia site would at least give a reader a starting place for finding the report.
I have restored the original reference and added the Webcite link as an additional archive copy of the report. If you are making this sort of change to other articles, I would urge you to adopt this method, rather than completely deleting dead links. Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 14:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I want to put this out there for consideration. With each additional mass shooting that occurs around the world, a very relevant question emerges for the editorial members of the Wikipedia community. Namely, why this event and Columbine are considered "massacres" while other events (Fort Hood, etc.) are called "shootings?"
Sadly, it would appear to me that Wikipedia writers are making "body count" a determination when titling articles like this one. Who determines what level of body count gets the "massacre" title? Why? Is it objective? Unbiased? Seems not.
And it's not how it's referred to in the local and national media/press coverage. Nor is it how official documents from government/state accounts, panels and reports refer to these events. In Virginia, the Governor's office refers to it simply as "April 16" or "April 16 incident" in the key findings. The University calls it a "Tragedy." The media in the state call it simply the "April 16th shooting" or "April 16, 2007" or "Tragedy." Attorneys for the victim's families, victim's families, and living victims refer to it as a "shooting" or "tragedy." Examples are below.
I'd like to see an explanation and recommendation regarding future titling for active shooter / mass killing articles. I think that it's important for Wikipedia to develop a clear taxonomy for these events. A taxonomy that also makes it easier to research all events would be helpful -- a single phrase or term that would rank higher in search engines and also support end-user phraseology is critical, I think. Calling one event a "massacre" and another a "shooting" isn't objective. Especially if based solely on body count.
In the case of this article, it appears to need a different title so that one could aggregate it with all the other coverage and reports from media, the state and government sources and courts.
( Possum4all ( talk) 15:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
As a follow-up, I am cross-posting this from the Columbine High School Talk on titling....
A google news archive search still shows a clear preference for massacre. (5,540 vs. 3,730) Hokie RNB 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't see the word "massacre" as neutral. It is sensational and inflammatory. "Massacre" is no more or less ambiguous than "shooting" in this situation. And, again, it does not reflect "when" the event occurred per WP Naming guidelines. I don't think "body count" should be a factor in determining the "massacre" naming convention, Arsonal, as it sets the wrong precedent for future taxonomy. I'm sure we'd find, too, that the common search term or keyword would be "shooting" and not "massacre." I'm going to continue to suggest this Article name be changed to "April 16, 2007 Shooting at Viriginia Tech" following the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). We can simply place a Wikipedia:Redirect on the title "Virginia Tech Massacre." ( Possum4all ( talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
I suggest that we archive or merge this into the Talk archive mentioned above by Arsonal. ( Possum4all ( talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
Not all massacres are shootings, so the argument that "massacre" is a more accurate term is false. Furthermore, massacres are generally carried out by more than one person, not a single spree-shooter. Lastly, "spree shootings" almost always involve an unarmed crowd, so there's no need to use "massacre" to further distinguish that. -- Ascot4903 ( talk) 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
With the Aurora shooting, I think it's becoming clearer that the word "massacre" is wrong for the title. The title is NOT consistent with the other spree shooting events. The spree shootings are all called such, except this and Columbine. Why? -- Possum4all ( talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone still believe that this article should have "massacre" in its title? It would seem that many of the contentions such as body count and media usage have been debunked as being non-policy based. I also agree that massacre is a bad word to use in this context. As a title, it provides little clarity and seemingly only serves to inspire other article writers to use the term rather than be encyclopedic-ally accurate or descriptive. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
In talk for 2014 Isla Vista killings, a strong (5-1) consensus was reached for deletion of college years+majors from the Casualties box there. At least two very experienced editors voted delete and cited what I read as fairly clear policy against inclusion of the years+majors. I think the same reasoning applies here, as I don't see any pertinent difference between the two situations. I also feel that hometowns and other biographical information fall under the same reasoning. Any objection to removing everything from the box except names and ages? If so, why? Mandruss ( talk) 16:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Right now the second paragraph of the lead feels very weird; ending on the note that his mother sought aid from a church seems very odd and doesn't lead into the next paragraph. Right now it feels out of place; I think noting that he had a history of psychological problems is definitely important and belongs there, but I think this paragraph needs to be reworked. I think just removing some of the information would make it read better; possibly leaving off with the note that he had been told by Virginia Tech to seek counseling prior to the incident. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per COMMONNAME. There was only one opposer (after Mandruss changed their mind), but by making a strange claim that was easily rebutted, I have discounted their opinion. Number 5 7 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Number 5 7 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Virginia Tech massacre → Virginia Tech shooting – This was discussed a long time ago, and the page ended up at Virginia Tech massacre. However, at this point, it seems that it should be moved to Virginia Tech Shooting per WP:COMMONNAME; looking at references to it in the news this year, they seem to refer to it as the Virginia Tech shooting pretty consistently, and all of the top results for the Virginia Tech massacre on Google also call it the Virginia Tech shooting other than the Wikipedia page. CNN and The Huffington Post both refer to it as "shooting" now (Huffington Post used to refer to it as the Virginia Tech massacre and shooting interchangeably, and still tags articles both ways), while USA Today uses both (shooting in the headline, massacre in the article body). The New York Times appears to refer to them as the "Virginia Tech shooting" in the navigator bar, CBS calls it the Virginia Tech shooting in the headline (it mentions that the person "survived a massacre" in the article text), Deadline live called it such, as does MSNBC, the AP (and again), Fox 59, Living for 32, which is a movie about the shooting, The Washington Post, In The Capital, ect. Googling for "Virginia Tech massacre" brings up a lot of articles which are entitled "Virginia Tech shooting". I did find this article from the University Herald, which refers to it as a massacre, but the majority of places - and the most important news outlets - seem to refer to it as the "Virginia Tech shooting" now fairly consistently, with "Virginia Tech massacre" being secondary and appearing in fewer sources, at least one of which used both. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Reversed position, and associated replies
|
---|
|
According to the clowns who refuse to retitle the Sandy Hooking Elementary School shooting article to use the word "massacre" instead of shooting, article titles are dictated by the most commonly accepted naming convention, specifically by comparing the number of Google hits for two different potential names. "Virginia Tech shooting" gets 21,000,000 hits, whereas "Virginia Tech massacre" only gets 2,100,000 hits. Somebody needs to retitle this article "Virginia Tech shooting". After all, it's a bit silly to have the Sandy Hook tragedy titled "shooting" but this is titled "massacre" when the alleged naming standard dictates that both incidents should be named "shootings". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 ( talk) 06:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This article claims (without a source) that the shooting "also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years." I don't believe this is true. What new "federal gun control measure" was passed? The article refers to a law that strengthened the NICS. But then it adds that, in addition, there was a new federal gun control measure. But no source is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 ( talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge there are new laws regarding the face ot face purchase of ammo in California coming up in feb 2011, but no Federal laws were put into effect as a knee jerk reaction of this incident. J. ORLY? ( talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Could someone who is more experienced/skilled with categorization of articles take a look at the categories here? Because this article has the same title as a category (an eponymous category), it's confusing to me as to which categories should be included and which should be excluded because they are parents of subcategories that are also listed. Here's a breakdown with my recommendations:
Attempts to make distinctions between "mass shootings", "spree shootings", and "massacres" seem to have failed, but I feel the distinctions should be made and adhered to. Not sure that can be done without lengthy discussions elsewhere, though.
Thanks for any help provided. 70.9.253.200 ( talk) 14:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
As noted above in the Talk:Virginia Tech shooting#Two archived sites section, links to the Internet Archive have purposefully been protocol-relevant; as some users cannot access https:// sites at all. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Internet Archive and HTTPS as well; also more information at Uniform Resource Locator#Protocol-relative URLs. 2602:306:BD7B:4230:95D6:A510:1872:68C1 ( talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
btw. webcitation.org don't works with PR-links, it's just http only, PR redirects to https. Boshomi ( talk) 20:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
An unregistered editor is insisting on removing the following text from this article:
We can quibble over exactly how this is all phrased but the main points of the statement - (a) second deadliest single gunman shooting in U.S. history, (b) second to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and (c) one of the deadliest single gunman attacks in the world - seem to be absolutely critical to readers' understanding of this event and its importance in U.S. culture and history. Our unregistered colleague has only described this information as "unnecessary" in his or her edit summaries without further explanation or discussion here or anywhere else. @ 71.72.130.81: Why are you willing to edit war over this? Why do you believe that it's unnecessary to place this into historical context? ElKevbo ( talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Needs some serious work, see detailed comments below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues identified | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Fine. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Spot checks of citations show good compliance. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | A few unsupported statements have been identified in the below comments. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None identified. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Sort of. It's currently UNDUEly focused on the responses, both diplomatic and political, to the point of virtually eclipsing the coverage of the shooting itself. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The response section is awful big and convoluted, and should be trimmed aggressively and/or spun out into a separate article. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Reasonably neutral, with some instances of unimportant promotional material which I've noted below | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Fine. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | File:VA Tech massacre aerial photo of referenced locations.jpg is a derivative work from the USGS maps, and I do not believe the combinations of licensing statements to be correct. File:Penn State 2007 Spring Game - VT section.jpg needs OTRS confirmation: "personal correspondence" is insufficient, as I understand it. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine, see comments below. | |
7. Overall assessment. | ON HOLD to address the identified issues. |
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
A couple of odd points would seem to require some further explanation, or perhaps some additional internal links:
Attacks section, Norris Hall shootings subsection: Professor Liviu Librescu, is described as "an Israeli Holocaust survivor". I can find no reference, anywhere, to an "Israeli Holocaust", and had no idea that there was such a thing. If there is/was such a thing, then a footnote or reference explaining the "Israeli Holocaust" should be included.
If what is meant, perhaps, is that Professor Librescu was an Israeli national, who happened also to have been a survivor of the Holocaust of WWII, then the sentence needs to be rewritten; as it stands, it is ambiguous and confusing.
Responses to the incidents section, University response subsection: there is absolutely no mention of whether the University made use of broadcast media (radio; TV; PA systems; etc.) to attempt to warn students of the situation. All that is mentioned is "The university first informed students via e-mail at 9:26 a.m., about two hours after the first shooting". It seems unlikely that the only way the University would have attempted to warn students would have been by email, which some students might not have checked for hours or even days.
Were other announcements (e.g. radio) made? If so, when? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Someone just moved this article to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre. I moved it back. That's a good redirect to have but a very bad name for this article. Put simply, no one refers to this event by that name. And common usage is one of our guiding principles in naming articles.
Any other thoughts or discussion? -- ElKevbo ( talk) 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No one calls Tech VPI these days. and the user who did the move has taken to constantly blanking their talk page. Bad form all around. DarkAudit ( talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't a Korean VT student shoot himself in his car in the Target parking lot in Christiansburg, VA, after being bullied by other students because he was Korean? This incident occured after the shootings and I recall he mentioned something about how people said he looked like Cho. Redjoker01 ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)redjoker01: 10/17/08
I just saw a Korean TV show which claimed that Cho didn't do it, and was merely a scapegoat for the real killer, who presumably remains at large. Do we have any citable Korean sources that make the conspiracy claim? 121.162.51.143 ( talk) 09:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH01_20090201-003926/194507/ More sites locked before Tech alert
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH02_20090201-222813/195587/No Tech follow-up on Cho incidents
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH03_20090202-221910/196413/ Part 3: Va. Tech’s warning was too late
http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/images/20090202/vatechdocuments.html Two Versions of Events at Virginia Tech
http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/VTContents.pdf Va. Tech documents
http://www.prevailarchive.org/archive/ The Prevail Archive is a volunteer Virginia Tech student effort to make internal documents relating to the events of April 16 at Virginia Tech publicly accessible
Springmorning ( talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The article says that there is/was a settlement, yet it fails to say who or what is paying the money to the families?-- Demertius840 ( talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The article could include a reference to Lucinda Roy's book, "No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech"
Between references 3 & 4, there is a sentence referring to people who identified the need for intervention - Roy appears to be one of those individuals.
Mahetrick ( talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Reading this article, I'm left wondering what "Hokie" means. Unfree ( talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The article claims to be listing deaths in chronological order. However, Librescu is third on the list, while the text of the article states, that Cho first went to Room 206 and 207 and killed people there, before going to Room 204, and killing Librescu. Aquila89 ( talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the infobox photo show the actual massacre, not a separate (but related) event? The mourning of students isn't the massacre, the shooting that took place prior is. Wikipedia should be as direct as possible in describing things. 76.167.53.67 ( talk) 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
A song on the Exodus' new Album "Exhibit B: The Human Condition" called "Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)," is a reference to Cho and the massacre. Is it appropriate to use this song in popular culture segment of the page. Here is a link to the VT massacre view http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/04/23/exodus-class-dismissed-a-hate-primer-new-song/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.241.139 ( talk) 09:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There was also that kid who made that controversial NES-style game on Newgrounds, which isn't mentioned here.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this section is too detailed and focused on too many little incidents. In particular, I question whether the article should include the paragraph on the marching bands, and whether we need quite so much detail on the South Korean response. I hesitate to make this kind of broad change unilaterally, though. What do others think? Karanacs ( talk) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but i just replaced the misnomer "Vermont" Tech, with Virginia Tech, twice in this section. I assume someone did some typos and mistakenly used the name of another "V" state when writing the text. Meat Eating Orchid ( talk) 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "gun rights activist" concerns me because groups with opposing points of view (the Brady group) are not labelled as "anti-gun rights activists." To be fair, shouldn't both sides be labelled or neither? 192.31.106.35 ( talk) 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)mike
I believe you are correct, it is a POV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors Gekritzl and ElKevbo have been adding content (the latter just one time) about Cho's mother seeking spiritual help trough an exorcism for Cho. Arkon and I have reverted most of this edits (I also once rephrased the content to conform to the source, and Arkon once reverted the use of the term "exorcism" as it does not exist in the sources). I have opened a thread in the original research noticeboard about this matter. I would ask all parties interested in this matter to discuss it in the mentioned thread in order to concentrate the opinions, and reach a consensus. Thank you all. -- Legion fi ( talk) 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
No offense but... let's see how many man-hours we can WASTE over nothing more than a matter of semantics, a synonym, as MithrasPriest pointed out. Anybody? I already went back to my life. Geĸrίtzl ( talk) 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I distinctly remember that at the time there was a lot of coverage on Cho's sister and the fact she was their parents' favorite and the effect this had on Cho, yet I don't read any of this back in the article. Care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 ( talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As this article is related and probably more watched, I'm giving notification here. I have nominated Wendell Flinchum for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Flinchum if you wish to opine. -- B ( talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is it mentioned that one of the teachers was a Holocaust survivor as he was holding the door shut? This is inappropriate and has nothing to do with his actions at the time of shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.142.155 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 April 2011
The "Weapon(s) Glock 19, Walther P22" information seems out of place in the infobox for some reason. Putting that line there puts disproportionate importance and stress on the brands of weapon used, since the rest of the information is of the most fundamental information about the attack (location, amount of casualties, etc). For me, adding weapon brands into the infobox adds a weird artificial coldness to it, making it seem more like something you would find on a website made by people obsessed with mass murders rather than something you would find on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it should be removed. 46.162.70.221 ( talk) 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a picture of the shooter posing with his guns trying to look badass but none of the victims anywhere. And people wonder why kids do this kind of crap. KevinLuna ( talk) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence of the description of the shootings reads "Conversely, due to the limited penetration depth of hollow point bullets, it is likely that Colman would have died had they not been used". The reference is a 20 year old material, and the ammunition used is not pointed to in the article as what Cho used. The statement that hollowpoint bullets have limited penetration seems to suggest that they have limited wounding capabilities which is ludicrous. Also, you have to go back 3 paragraphs to determine who "Coleman" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm totally against adding information about the shooting that happened today in this article. We know absolutely nothing about this, the shooter is still on the loose, and it appears to be during a traffic stop. If this turns out to be just random crime during a traffic stop, no one will remember anything about this incident in a year. 129.186.245.2 ( talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone has added info about the alert system and it's use yesterday. I don't see yesterday's event is relevant to April 16. I will be reverting or editing that info. -- Possum4all ( talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a shooting pointer at the top of the Massacre entry? That page us up for deletion.-- Possum4all ( talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
"red flags" such as an "unusual interest in police, military equipment, weapons, and camouflage"
So I guess half the male population is at risk of being mass murderers? I'm sorry, when I was growing up, most all my friends loved playing with guns, reading and talking about guns, the military, and the sometimes the police. And many of my friends wore camo gear or bdu's and military gear for fun. This is ridiculous. Perhaps having testosterone was a red flag that he might be homicidal??? Interest in weapons and the military may indicate a sense of powerlessness, but it doesn't indicate homicidal tendencies. Uh, perhaps stalking women and being diagnosed with mental disorders might have been red flags. Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Request someone reword part of this article:
The article states that visitors and third-parties are banned from carrying weapons: this is not true. As a state entity, VPIU&SU is prohibited from enacting such a ban by Virginia law. It is only a violation of school rules for a student or employee to carry and can be met with disciplinary action. In the case of the student who carried a firearm with a concealed handgun permit, it is NOT illegal and no charges could ever be filed because no law was broken. He could be subject to administrative disciplinary processes, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.43.45 ( talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Could it be noted somewhere in the article that the fifth anniversary of this is a day or two after Kim-Jong Un's first speech in North Korea? -- 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A link I added to a recent book on the Virginia Tech Massacre was removed as promotional content/spam. Not sure if this was a mistake or intentional. I reinstated the link and checked the guidelines to be sure. The book is directly relevant to the article's subject. If the new link is somehow inappropriate, the link to the documentary should also be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead and the box with the victims say 32 killed. BUt this part "of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head" says 30. Can someone explain this difference? And if you count Cho it's 33, plus the 6 injured escaping from windows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinSky ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In two phone interviews of Cho's suite-mates on Cable TV news programs Cho was reveled to have created Subliminal Distraction exposure and would have experienced the psychotic-like episode SD exposure has been known to cause for 48 years. Both the President and Dean of students at Tech replied to communications and promised action to investigate this. But nothing has been done. This revelation would make Tech responsible for the shooting.
His roommates said he sat in the outer suite room using his computer to perform classwork and would not look up and acknowledge them as they walked by him going and returning from classes. One of them said he increased that activity in the month before the shooting.___ They were describing how disturbed and distant he was and did not understand they were also describing Subliminal Distraction.
Engineers and designers hired to modernize the business office discovered the problem when it caused mental breaks for office workers in 1964. The Cubicle was designed to block peripheral vision to stop it by 1968. That prevents repeating subliminal failed attempts to execute the vision startle reflex, explained in first semester psychology as a subliminal distraction. If the mental break it causes is mentioned in lectures about peripheral vision reflexes it is treated as something that happened only once, long ago. My instructor said, "Subliminal sight caused a problem in the early days of modern office design."
The Redlake tribal school, Jokela Finland school,and Atlanta day trader killers also created this problem. Barton, Atlanta, thought he was having a mental break from inherited mental illness.
L K Tucker VisionAndPsychosis.Net I own the copyright for VisionAndPsychosis.Net. 2602:306:CCE1:2C50:1095:FF3D:38F4:1CC4 ( talk) 02:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it can be added. a little wrewriting but yes looks fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereisnospoons ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
According to Seung-Hui Cho's page he killed 32 and wounded 23, but this page says he killed 32 and wounded 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.226.193 ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The part "previously adjudicated" means that a court of law decided. Rather than just go and change it to "judged by authorities", I'd appreciate feedback. Wzrd1 ( talk) 05:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That didn't take long. A section added here earlier today on 'Criticism of university response' has been removed without comment. Can we have the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: Did you actually read the section you removed before removing it?
The subject of the section is criticism of the university's response. The criticism comes from Prof. Kenneth Westhues, who is notable enough apparently to have his own Wiki entry (see deleted section). The section you deleted mentions a series of articles accessible through the link provided -- two of which appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Only one of which is 'self-published', appearing on the professor's blog.
This article has at least half a dozen separate 'response' sub-sections. Is it really impossible that there can be mention of criticism of Virginia Tech's response on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I invite you to click on the ref link given in the section to the 'series of articles'. On the left, in easy to read large text, you will find links to articles by Westhues -- some of which were published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch as mentioned. The main body of the article is indeed 'self-published'. But as Wikipedia's own article on Westhues states, he is a listed authority on the topic of mobbing. It strikes me as odd that this would be a problem since Wikipedia seems to cite blogs and new media all the time. Heinrich66 ( talk) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, another reason why your comment above is odd is because the purpose of the section 'Criticism of university response' is not to prove the university was at fault. It's simply to note as a fact that criticism exists. In this case, it comes from an established professor who is an authority in his field. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it curious how certain articles have these standards rigidly enforced and yet others are a complete mess. [BTW, it's funny that the section has now been immediately deleted by someone who only seems to have contributed to articles about Seung-Hui Cho and George W. Bush in the past. Did you call him up to avoid 3RR?] If Westhues had expressed his opinions in an interview with a magazine (or on somebody else's blog, for that matter) that would have been sufficient as citation to show that a) criticism exists; and b) that he was the one criticizing. Yet the writing by the man himself is somehow not sufficient. The link I gave was itself a direct and the most efficient way for a reader to access Westhues' writing on Virginia Tech -- which is the purpose of citation after all. But fine, if you're to be taken at your word, I'll re-work the section. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This is from Wikipedia's own guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6]
So how do you justify what you wrote above? Westhues is an established expert in mobbing (even according to Wikipedia) who self-published at least one piece and published another stating his view that the VT shootings were the result of mobbing. And yet the whole section has been removed. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Now you're moving the goalposts. So you say that *even if* something is determined to be a reliable source, that doesn't mean it should be included? It's a 'judgment call'? And yet somehow this judgment call you're appealing to saves us from the 'opinions of volunteers who may not be experts'?
You are a volunteer, not an expert. According to Wikipedia's own guideline (quoted above) a self-published piece *may* be included "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". This is clearly the case with Westhues. 1) He is a recognized expert on mobbing. 2) He has published in reliable third-party publications on mobbing. 3) He claims mobbing happened at Virginia Tech.
I'd also like to note for anyone reading this, that there should even be a slightly weaker standard here since what we're talking about is not a wiki article on mobbing, but rather the factual question of whether criticism of the university exists in connection with the shootings. It does exist; it's undeniable. In this particular case, the critic (Westhues) has criticized the university for failing to recognize Cho was mobbed. Whether or not we agree with him, it is a fact that he has made this criticism. It's also a fact based on Wikipedia's own guideline above, as a recognized expert in his field, not only can self-published material of his be cited, but as a professor and published author, the balance goes in favor of his inclusion on this point. Heinrich66 ( talk) 21:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You're not making any sense now. I've reworked the section according to the criticisms of yours that appear legitimate. Whether or not what's going on here is simple gate-keeping, time will tell. Here's a summary of the changes: 1. Three citations are now given for Westhues: a) a self-published piece -- which under Wikipedia guidelines may be used when the author is a specialist/expert in his field b) a published piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch c) a peer-reviewed third-party piece by Ffion Murphy from a series called "The Creativity and Uncertainty Papers: the refereed proceedings of the 13th conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, 2008".
These three ought to be sufficient to establish the factual issue of: a) whether criticism of the university exists; b) whether it is Westhues who is criticizing; c) whether that criticism involves the concept of mobbing.
2) I've removed the citation to the unsigned blog post, and redirected it instead to the Westhues piece where he cites it. The responsibility for the citation, therefore, is Westhues', not Wikipedia's.
The above addresses your legitimate concerns. I think it's non-controversial that there should be a section on criticism of the university. The VT massacre was a major event, as shown by its having a Wiki article. Also, as the same article points out, the university was fined, which suggests its conduct was perhaps not impeccable. On the factual question of whether public criticism of the university also exists in connection with the shootings, we have it: a professor who is a recognized expert in his field has publicly criticized the university and its response to the shootings for failing to recognize their cause, which he claims is mobbing. He has not only self-published this view (which can be cited according to Wiki guidelines), but published it in a major newspaper, and his work has been cited at least once by another academic in a peer-reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Since she is included here, I'm providing a link to the discussion regarding the deletion of the article for Diane Strickland. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Strickland if you wish to comment.— D'Ranged 1 talk 10:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! About This edit
The idea is not two archived sites but two working links. A site with a working original link and one archive link is okay, because both links work. But since the original link is dead it's not necessary to have a hyperlink of it when we can put in another archive link. Three reasons:
Trying to stick to a rigid "it must be the dead original link and one archive link only" is harmful. When I do archive links, I stick to two working links for the above reasons and that is how I want things to work. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion was moved here from User talk:D'Ranged 1#Two archived sites.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 14:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
WhisperToMe—While I tend to agree with your reasoning, it goes against Wikipedia practice. WP:Link rot specifically states:
WP:Link rot has an entire section, titled Keeping dead links, that explains why dead links shouldn't be deleted. In a nutshell: the link, even if no longer functional, gives the reader excellent information on where to find the material cited. In this particular instance, suppose both archive sites cease functioning or are down? Having the link to the Commonwealth of Virginia site would at least give a reader a starting place for finding the report.
I have restored the original reference and added the Webcite link as an additional archive copy of the report. If you are making this sort of change to other articles, I would urge you to adopt this method, rather than completely deleting dead links. Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 14:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I want to put this out there for consideration. With each additional mass shooting that occurs around the world, a very relevant question emerges for the editorial members of the Wikipedia community. Namely, why this event and Columbine are considered "massacres" while other events (Fort Hood, etc.) are called "shootings?"
Sadly, it would appear to me that Wikipedia writers are making "body count" a determination when titling articles like this one. Who determines what level of body count gets the "massacre" title? Why? Is it objective? Unbiased? Seems not.
And it's not how it's referred to in the local and national media/press coverage. Nor is it how official documents from government/state accounts, panels and reports refer to these events. In Virginia, the Governor's office refers to it simply as "April 16" or "April 16 incident" in the key findings. The University calls it a "Tragedy." The media in the state call it simply the "April 16th shooting" or "April 16, 2007" or "Tragedy." Attorneys for the victim's families, victim's families, and living victims refer to it as a "shooting" or "tragedy." Examples are below.
I'd like to see an explanation and recommendation regarding future titling for active shooter / mass killing articles. I think that it's important for Wikipedia to develop a clear taxonomy for these events. A taxonomy that also makes it easier to research all events would be helpful -- a single phrase or term that would rank higher in search engines and also support end-user phraseology is critical, I think. Calling one event a "massacre" and another a "shooting" isn't objective. Especially if based solely on body count.
In the case of this article, it appears to need a different title so that one could aggregate it with all the other coverage and reports from media, the state and government sources and courts.
( Possum4all ( talk) 15:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
As a follow-up, I am cross-posting this from the Columbine High School Talk on titling....
A google news archive search still shows a clear preference for massacre. (5,540 vs. 3,730) Hokie RNB 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't see the word "massacre" as neutral. It is sensational and inflammatory. "Massacre" is no more or less ambiguous than "shooting" in this situation. And, again, it does not reflect "when" the event occurred per WP Naming guidelines. I don't think "body count" should be a factor in determining the "massacre" naming convention, Arsonal, as it sets the wrong precedent for future taxonomy. I'm sure we'd find, too, that the common search term or keyword would be "shooting" and not "massacre." I'm going to continue to suggest this Article name be changed to "April 16, 2007 Shooting at Viriginia Tech" following the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). We can simply place a Wikipedia:Redirect on the title "Virginia Tech Massacre." ( Possum4all ( talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
I suggest that we archive or merge this into the Talk archive mentioned above by Arsonal. ( Possum4all ( talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
Not all massacres are shootings, so the argument that "massacre" is a more accurate term is false. Furthermore, massacres are generally carried out by more than one person, not a single spree-shooter. Lastly, "spree shootings" almost always involve an unarmed crowd, so there's no need to use "massacre" to further distinguish that. -- Ascot4903 ( talk) 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
With the Aurora shooting, I think it's becoming clearer that the word "massacre" is wrong for the title. The title is NOT consistent with the other spree shooting events. The spree shootings are all called such, except this and Columbine. Why? -- Possum4all ( talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone still believe that this article should have "massacre" in its title? It would seem that many of the contentions such as body count and media usage have been debunked as being non-policy based. I also agree that massacre is a bad word to use in this context. As a title, it provides little clarity and seemingly only serves to inspire other article writers to use the term rather than be encyclopedic-ally accurate or descriptive. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
In talk for 2014 Isla Vista killings, a strong (5-1) consensus was reached for deletion of college years+majors from the Casualties box there. At least two very experienced editors voted delete and cited what I read as fairly clear policy against inclusion of the years+majors. I think the same reasoning applies here, as I don't see any pertinent difference between the two situations. I also feel that hometowns and other biographical information fall under the same reasoning. Any objection to removing everything from the box except names and ages? If so, why? Mandruss ( talk) 16:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Right now the second paragraph of the lead feels very weird; ending on the note that his mother sought aid from a church seems very odd and doesn't lead into the next paragraph. Right now it feels out of place; I think noting that he had a history of psychological problems is definitely important and belongs there, but I think this paragraph needs to be reworked. I think just removing some of the information would make it read better; possibly leaving off with the note that he had been told by Virginia Tech to seek counseling prior to the incident. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per COMMONNAME. There was only one opposer (after Mandruss changed their mind), but by making a strange claim that was easily rebutted, I have discounted their opinion. Number 5 7 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Number 5 7 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Virginia Tech massacre → Virginia Tech shooting – This was discussed a long time ago, and the page ended up at Virginia Tech massacre. However, at this point, it seems that it should be moved to Virginia Tech Shooting per WP:COMMONNAME; looking at references to it in the news this year, they seem to refer to it as the Virginia Tech shooting pretty consistently, and all of the top results for the Virginia Tech massacre on Google also call it the Virginia Tech shooting other than the Wikipedia page. CNN and The Huffington Post both refer to it as "shooting" now (Huffington Post used to refer to it as the Virginia Tech massacre and shooting interchangeably, and still tags articles both ways), while USA Today uses both (shooting in the headline, massacre in the article body). The New York Times appears to refer to them as the "Virginia Tech shooting" in the navigator bar, CBS calls it the Virginia Tech shooting in the headline (it mentions that the person "survived a massacre" in the article text), Deadline live called it such, as does MSNBC, the AP (and again), Fox 59, Living for 32, which is a movie about the shooting, The Washington Post, In The Capital, ect. Googling for "Virginia Tech massacre" brings up a lot of articles which are entitled "Virginia Tech shooting". I did find this article from the University Herald, which refers to it as a massacre, but the majority of places - and the most important news outlets - seem to refer to it as the "Virginia Tech shooting" now fairly consistently, with "Virginia Tech massacre" being secondary and appearing in fewer sources, at least one of which used both. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Reversed position, and associated replies
|
---|
|
According to the clowns who refuse to retitle the Sandy Hooking Elementary School shooting article to use the word "massacre" instead of shooting, article titles are dictated by the most commonly accepted naming convention, specifically by comparing the number of Google hits for two different potential names. "Virginia Tech shooting" gets 21,000,000 hits, whereas "Virginia Tech massacre" only gets 2,100,000 hits. Somebody needs to retitle this article "Virginia Tech shooting". After all, it's a bit silly to have the Sandy Hook tragedy titled "shooting" but this is titled "massacre" when the alleged naming standard dictates that both incidents should be named "shootings". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 ( talk) 06:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This article claims (without a source) that the shooting "also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years." I don't believe this is true. What new "federal gun control measure" was passed? The article refers to a law that strengthened the NICS. But then it adds that, in addition, there was a new federal gun control measure. But no source is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 ( talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge there are new laws regarding the face ot face purchase of ammo in California coming up in feb 2011, but no Federal laws were put into effect as a knee jerk reaction of this incident. J. ORLY? ( talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Could someone who is more experienced/skilled with categorization of articles take a look at the categories here? Because this article has the same title as a category (an eponymous category), it's confusing to me as to which categories should be included and which should be excluded because they are parents of subcategories that are also listed. Here's a breakdown with my recommendations:
Attempts to make distinctions between "mass shootings", "spree shootings", and "massacres" seem to have failed, but I feel the distinctions should be made and adhered to. Not sure that can be done without lengthy discussions elsewhere, though.
Thanks for any help provided. 70.9.253.200 ( talk) 14:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
As noted above in the Talk:Virginia Tech shooting#Two archived sites section, links to the Internet Archive have purposefully been protocol-relevant; as some users cannot access https:// sites at all. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Internet Archive and HTTPS as well; also more information at Uniform Resource Locator#Protocol-relative URLs. 2602:306:BD7B:4230:95D6:A510:1872:68C1 ( talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
btw. webcitation.org don't works with PR-links, it's just http only, PR redirects to https. Boshomi ( talk) 20:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
An unregistered editor is insisting on removing the following text from this article:
We can quibble over exactly how this is all phrased but the main points of the statement - (a) second deadliest single gunman shooting in U.S. history, (b) second to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and (c) one of the deadliest single gunman attacks in the world - seem to be absolutely critical to readers' understanding of this event and its importance in U.S. culture and history. Our unregistered colleague has only described this information as "unnecessary" in his or her edit summaries without further explanation or discussion here or anywhere else. @ 71.72.130.81: Why are you willing to edit war over this? Why do you believe that it's unnecessary to place this into historical context? ElKevbo ( talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Needs some serious work, see detailed comments below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues identified | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Fine. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Spot checks of citations show good compliance. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | A few unsupported statements have been identified in the below comments. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None identified. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Sort of. It's currently UNDUEly focused on the responses, both diplomatic and political, to the point of virtually eclipsing the coverage of the shooting itself. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The response section is awful big and convoluted, and should be trimmed aggressively and/or spun out into a separate article. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Reasonably neutral, with some instances of unimportant promotional material which I've noted below | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Fine. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | File:VA Tech massacre aerial photo of referenced locations.jpg is a derivative work from the USGS maps, and I do not believe the combinations of licensing statements to be correct. File:Penn State 2007 Spring Game - VT section.jpg needs OTRS confirmation: "personal correspondence" is insufficient, as I understand it. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine, see comments below. | |
7. Overall assessment. | ON HOLD to address the identified issues. |
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
A couple of odd points would seem to require some further explanation, or perhaps some additional internal links:
Attacks section, Norris Hall shootings subsection: Professor Liviu Librescu, is described as "an Israeli Holocaust survivor". I can find no reference, anywhere, to an "Israeli Holocaust", and had no idea that there was such a thing. If there is/was such a thing, then a footnote or reference explaining the "Israeli Holocaust" should be included.
If what is meant, perhaps, is that Professor Librescu was an Israeli national, who happened also to have been a survivor of the Holocaust of WWII, then the sentence needs to be rewritten; as it stands, it is ambiguous and confusing.
Responses to the incidents section, University response subsection: there is absolutely no mention of whether the University made use of broadcast media (radio; TV; PA systems; etc.) to attempt to warn students of the situation. All that is mentioned is "The university first informed students via e-mail at 9:26 a.m., about two hours after the first shooting". It seems unlikely that the only way the University would have attempted to warn students would have been by email, which some students might not have checked for hours or even days.
Were other announcements (e.g. radio) made? If so, when? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)